Canadian Federal Election 2015

[cbrunny]

every time Kathy Wynne opens her mouth she is sending more votes Harper's way.

To be quite honest, I see no reason anyone could vote Liberal in Ontario and keep a straight face.

While I wholly agree with you, ten thousand percent, I must point out that the Liberal Party of Ontario and the Liberal Party of Canada are technically different political entities. Only the NDP (and Green, I think? Not sure...) are the same party between provinces and from Provincial to Federal level.

 

[Iron Woode]

While I wholly agree with you, ten thousand percent, I must point out that the Liberal Party of Ontario and the Liberal Party of Canada are technically different political entities. Only the NDP (and Green, I think? Not sure...) are the same party between provinces and from Provincial to Federal level.

yes, but she's campaigning for Justin.

 

[cbrunny]

You're quite lacking in adequate knowledge and common sense then...

Far starters, increasingly over the past year in the run up to the election, the Harper Government (their own queasy statist label and dear leader brand identity), if not illegally, then officially inappropriately used federal cash to fund more blatant than ever partisan ad campaigns by various ministries.

Then the crux is that the sitting government passed new legislation with the pre-planned intent to government coffers to its benefit.

Harper flat-out lied to the population at the call to an election at Government House.

Yet, cbrunny, you're obliviously 'confused as to why people are upset...'



Previously, a flat $25 million per federal party was the limit for spending -- thereby the lack of need to fundraise much beyond that. The Conservative Party of Canada planned to legislatively fix an upcoming election in its favour by going beyond past need in fundraising knowing full well that its questionable 'Fair Elections Act' would increasing spending limits with a newly legislated possibility for lengthened campaign.

Despite Harper's full on-lie (his first among many only moments into the campaign) about federal parties rather than taxpayers being on the possible hook for a more expensive campaign, the facts are that the tax coffers of the federal government may have to chock up ~$1.23 for ever $1 in election expenses by a party and its local candidates. The Conservative Party of Canada planned for this before fixing legislation to benefit in the regard, and have no lengthened the campaign to waste more taxpayer's money for their specific undemocratic benefit.

This is no longer simply the past concerns for an early election call, but of partisan fixing of the election in increasing the official campaign length for the desperate party in power to remain in power via the pilfering of tax collected cash.

cbrunny, is that you 'Skippy'? This isn't about democracy, it's about scamming yet more money from country in debt all to keep an extremely statist and undemocratic federal party in power. cbrunny, why do you seem to trust the spin out of weasel such a Pierre Poilievre...?

This is entirely unconvincing, mostly for reasons that I've stated already. In brief, all parties have fundraising. All parties receive funds from the government with the same rules. If Harper had waited 6 weeks to call the election, his critics would have accused him of using government money to run a campaign (as you have done as well - I'm not disputing this point). If Harper calls early and uses his party's money to run the campaign, he is criticized for abusing legislative privilege as you claim vis-a-vis the Fair Elections Act. FEA was passed in June of 2014, which isn't a ton of time ahead of an October election but still provided a full 14 months lead time for parties to get their funds in order.

This is no worse in any way than majority governments of past dissolving parliament at the height of their popularity. In many ways it is actually far better.

I am not sure why you think I'm voting CPC. All I've said in this thread so far is that I think complaining about this particularly long election is a waste of time and a demonstration of incompetence. I've even said I like Mulcair.

 

[cbrunny]

That's his opinion. Of a previously hard core CPC supporter who's expressing justification not to support the alternatives.

Notice for Trudeau, he's using the CPC tagline that's repeating -- verbatim - via ads and soundbites into Canadian's head -- 'he's not ready...'

The guy is in his 40s. Holds a degree that, unlike the current PM, actually applied to an applicable career. The current PM, with an unpracticed economics degree has now racked up consistent deficits for budgets during his term, governed over two recessions, and for deceptive political opportunism can't recognise to the current recession for what it is defined to be.

The facts are, that the CPC will face a decrease in participating support in this election. Not just of Red Tories who will vote for an alternative, but of course supporters who are so dissatisfied with current governance, that they are now motivated not to vote.

Trudeau is entirely incompetent. Your post makes me think that you're one of the "If its in a political ad, its definitely wrong and the opposite is truth" folks. I'm all for skepticism but I am extraordinarily skeptical of anyone who thinks that Trudeau is actually ready to be PM.

And thats saying nothing of a Liberal Party that has been struggling for 10 years now to remain relevant, panicking constantly. Trying to drop in superstars (Iggy, Trudeau, for example) that have done nothing positive and actually divided the country deeper; proposing niche policy that simply isn't a national priority right now. Generally, they're a party that seems to flail its arms around wondering why no one is looking without the ability to understand they have no relevance anymore.

 

[cbrunny]

yes, but she's campaigning for Justin.

haha yeah I know. It's funny I said the same thing you did to my wife a few days ago. Just seeing her makes my blood boil. She is beyond the worst ever Premier.

 

[cbrunny]

cbrunny, as of today in the traditionally pro-Conservative National Post.........

FWIW, I fully agree with the article, though not sure why you've centred me out as a blue-blooded CPC member.

 

[Iron Woode]

another article on Wynne's idiocy:

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-c...-helps-no-one-with-her-outbursts-about-harper

here is the crux of her stupidity:

Wynne’s motives are no secret. She doesn’t get along with Harper, a situation for which they both carry some blame. The Ontario premier’s latest complaint is Ottawa’s refusal to help her collect the deductions to be imposed on Ontarians as part of the province’s new pension plan. There has been plenty of criticism of the plan: it would apply to only about half the workforce, add costs to business when they are already struggling with a downturn, remove more money from paycheques that are already stretched, and put pressure on Ontario’s sliding economy. Ottawa contemplated expanding the Canada Pension Plan but passed on the idea for exactly those reasons. Now Wynne is having a tantrum because it won’t ignore its own findings and save her the cost of collecting the pension payments on her own.

 

[KMFJD]

ABH....

 

[cbrunny]

ABH....

ABT, really.

 

[KMFJD]

ABT, really.

What's Justin done to make so many people angry?

 

[3chordcharlie]

I haven't got the foggiest idea what ' just not ready' means, but it uses most of the letters in 'Justin Trudeau' (definitely not an accident), in mostly the same order, and it is being repeated in public more often than even 'wasteful and ineffective long-gun registry'.

Whoever came up with it probably deserves a raise.

 

[cbrunny]

What's Justin done to make so many people angry?

He doesn't make me angry. He is just not competent enough to be the PM.

 

[KMFJD]

He doesn't make me angry. He is just not competent enough to be the PM.

Sounds more competent than the guy that's there now...for me it's between Muclair and Trudeau, however i'm not convinced either way yet.

 

[Victorian Gray]

What's Justin done to make so many people angry?

Start with Bill C-51.

 

[Spungo]

ABC

http://ipolitics.ca/2014/11/12/angr...mpaign-to-defeat-tories-in-upcoming-election/

Interesting article. America Junior is just like regular America, but smaller.

Clarke and Blais are urging the government—or possibly future government—to re-open the nine veterans offices that the Conservative government closed across Canada, and to grant veterans a pension, rather than a minimal lump sum of $350,000.

How is that taxed? Tax-free 350k is a lot of money. 350k before taxes is not a hell of a lot since the government would take half of it. The men in my family never seem to live past 70, so a lump sum would be awesome for them. The women in my family live for a really long time, so I would rather have the lifetime payments. My point is that people can have justified reasons for being on either side of this argument, which is a debate going on in every western country at this time. It's not accurate to say people wanting the lump sump hate seniors. I could just as easily say the people against lump sum payouts hate people like my dad who died at age 66, and one of my uncles who died somewhere around 68 or 69.

In 2011, five million Canadians were over 65 and that number is predicted to grow, according to Statistics Canada.

Yep, that's America alright. 2011 - 65 years = 1946, start of the baby boom.

“I named my son after Brian Mulroney. It’s not easy or enjoyable for us to take these measures—we have an obligation and those who are in pain and suffering and being ignored—their voices have the right to be heard and to be understood.”

lol

Both opposition parties made promises to Clarke and to all veterans. The Liberal party confirmed its commitment to reopening the nine offices that were closed and would offer veterans financial compensation that reflects pain and suffering—to be received in periodic payments, rather than a lump sum.

That sure sounds familiar. Are Canada's pensions hopelessly underfunded like those in Illinois? Fire up the printing presses, bitches!

parliamentary elections and cash-limited campaigns confuse me.

Shouldn't you just vote for whichever candidate seems less shitty?

Don't ask me to source this, but I remember seeing some study where something like 93% of US elections are won by the party that spends more money. America is a textbook example of corruption. Corporations and rich individuals literally buy the government. All you need to do is remove funding, and a candidate will lose. This is why both parties are funded by the same banks and insurance companies. This is why Bush's administration was in bed with bankers. This is why Obama's administration is in bed with those same bankers. How many bankers did Obama and Holder put in jail? Hint: the answer is 0. All candidates from both parties are owned by the same corporations. If I had to pin all of America's woes on just 1 problem, I would say legalized bribery of politicians is that problem.

Remember that, my Canadian friends. Legalized bribery is the single most important issue. Period. If anyone from any party ever suggests legalizing bribery, look to the south and see how that worked out. Don't just dismiss it by saying "That would never happen here. It's different this time."

 

[Spungo]

What's Justin done to make so many people angry?

As an American who jumps back and forth between Washington and Alberta, I might be able to answer this. Anyone who has spent more than 1 year in Alberta has heard the legend of Pierre Trudeau. He's believed to be the worst leader Canada has ever seen.

A short list of things Pierre did:

He removed a lot of regional governance from all Canadian provinces, and he centralized power in Ottawa. Imagine George Bush mandating abstinence-only education on a national scale, or putting a national ban on gay marriage, and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it on a state level. That's Pierre Trudeau in a nutshell. Screw you and your local culture; you are property of the federal government. Quebec was the primary victim of this because Quebec is the most different from the Canadian average. Tension between Quebec and the rest of Canada has always been high because Quebec was a French colony with French inhabitants being controlled by the English. IIRC, English control of Quebec was the result of a war, so it felt a lot more like an occupation. Think of it like America controlling Iraq, or America controlling Philippines, or America controlling Puerto Rico. The country is filled with Iraqis and Iraqi culture, but control is held by a foreign body. The Iraqis don't exactly want us there. Some time around 1979, this tension between Quebec and Canada got very high. There was some stuff with terrorists, the war measures act was invoked, and Quebec had a referendum to decide whether or not Quebec should have self-governance. Guess which side Pierre Trudeau was on. You guessed it - he was against sovereignty. In Pierre's mind, everything should be under his control. How dare these French fucks want control over their own laws? Being elected by Ontario means he should have complete control over Quebec, obviously. That's called Trudeau democracy, bitches.

Alberta was the second target of Trudeau's hate-filled rampage. Imagine Obama nationalizing the oil in Texas and forcing it to be sold for significantly less than the market price. That's exactly what Trudeau did to Alberta; it was called the National Energy Program (NEP). It cost Alberta billions of dollars. It caused Alberta hospitals and schools to be defunded. It caused a very severe recession; there's no reason for private companies to drill for oil when there's no profit to be made. People died because of those hospital cuts. This may not be the start of "western alienation" but it sure kicked it into high gear. It wasn't enough to make Quebec want to leave Canada. After Trudeau intentionally caused the biggest recession in Alberta since the great depression, Alberta wanted to leave Canada as well.

Remember how the national debt doubled while Bush was having fun killing brown people for vague reasons? Bush is an amateur. Under Pierre Trudeau, Canada's national debt increased 11 fold. 1100%. There was a budget surplus when he was elected, and there was a record high deficit when he left. He did more damage to Canada's budget than Reagan and Bush combined did to America's budget.


Justin Trudeau is Pierre Trudeau's son. The people who lived through Trudeau's bullshit are still alive today, and that anger is still alive. There is legitimate fear that Justin would be a repeat of Pierre.

 

[cbrunny]

Well put. Current Trudeau backers only remember "Charter of Rights and Freedoms" and the repatriation - and are convinced that both of these things are definitively good things. Brainwashed by the school systems, we are. No doubt. I remember going to rally's in the 2nd QC referendum in Ontario as a fourth grader, rallying against separation. As if I knew anything about what was going on. Brainwashed.

Everyone seems to forget that Quebec has not signed onto the Canadian Constitution. Let me say again, one of Canada's provinces is being subjected to constitutional laws to which it does not agree and has never agreed. It was not opt-in and there has never been a successful resolution because of BS outside of QC. And we are ok with this as a society. If this was a politically salient issue it would have been dealt with 30 years ago as it should have been. It is the single most important issue Canada faces right now imo, though not for obvious or salient reasons. Realistically, QC should separate, West should separate, Maritimes should separate, and everyone would be substantially happier. Except Ontario but that's because Kathleen Wynne is, how you say, about as useful as a poopy flavoured lolly pop.

 

[Whiskey16]

#2

 

[Spungo]

Well put. Current Trudeau backers only remember "Charter of Rights and Freedoms" and the repatriation - and are convinced that both of these things are definitively good things.

I'm surprised by the amount of hostility I've received from Canadians when I ask questions about past leaders. Trudeau was the primary one. Apparently he created the bill of rights or equivalent. That's nice, and he deserves credit for that. Next question: does that mean Canada had no bill of rights or constitution before that time? In the 1970s, could the Canadian government arrest people for no reason, hold them without pressing charges, and execute them without a trial? The answer is no. Alright, so what did Trudeau's bill of rights actually do? I'm sure it did something. I just want to know what it was. This is not a trick question.
"You're a conservative asshole."
Uh, no I'm not. I'm as far to the left as it gets. I believe in freedom, I believe in private property rights, I believe in due process, I believe in democracy, I believe in limited government power, I support gay rights, I support drug legalization, I support regulated immigration, etc. How am I a conservative?

He's Canada's version of Reagan. Ask an American conservative what was great about Reagan. Was it the treason? Selling arms to America's enemy, Iran, and using that money to fund wars in Central America? Was it because he supported numerous military dictatorships? Was it his careless pro-HIV stance that killed thousands of people? Was it his War on Drugs bullshit that caused the incarceration rate to skyrocket? Was it the record high budget deficits?
"You're just a dumb liberal."

Brainwashed by the school systems, we are. No doubt. I remember going to rally's in the 2nd QC referendum in Ontario as a fourth grader, rallying against separation. As if I knew anything about what was going on. Brainwashed.

I had the same mentality as a kid. School teaches people that centralized power is a good thing. It's a good thing when England is controlled by the Roman empire. It's a good thing when India is controlled by England. It's a good thing when Africa is controlled by the French and the Dutch. It's a good thing when black people are slaves of white people. It's a good thing when Vietnam is controlled by France. People were even told that Columbus was a good guy because he enslaved and murdered tens of thousands of natives. We went as far as naming a national holiday after him. Like wtf, seriously. In his own journals, Columbus wrote about hacking arms off people and feeding natives to dogs. Schools tried spinning that as a good thing. People in China spin the same story about Mao Zedong. Remember that time he murdered about 50 million Chinese? That was a good thing! His face is still on their money. Imagine using money that had both Hitler and Stalin on the same bill. That's how evil Mao was, and he's still a national hero. It's astounding how much propaganda we are fed.


Britain recently dealt with this issue as well. There was a referendum to decide whether or not Scotland should have freedom. In the past, Scots died over this issue. Now people just had to write on a piece of paper to win, and the propaganda came out in full force. The UK government made all kinds of threats to scare the Scottish people, saying this would mean all healthcare and old age pensions would cease to exist (sort of like how Canada and Australia have no healthcare or pension schemes since leaving the UK....), and that resulted in Scotland voting to remain a subjugate of Britain. People shouldn't celebrate when they lose control of their own laws. Population of Scotland: 5.3 million. Population of England: 53 million. How much representation do you think Scotland has? They're 100% of the people in Scotland, but they only have 10% control of the laws. Yeah, that sounds fair. This applies to every country that has a federalist system. Chris "Krispy Kreme" Christie said that Colorado and Washington should enjoy their marijuana now because it will be illegal when he becomes president. Think about that for a second. People voted to have that right, and this guy proudly claims that he will remove rights and stomp on democracy. How do people like this exist? Saying something like that should be on the same level as denying the holocaust and saying all women deserve to be beaten. People like that need to be exposed as the evil scumbags they are.

 

[cbrunny]

I'm surprised by the amount of hostility I've received from Canadians when I ask questions about past leaders. Trudeau was the primary one. Apparently he created the bill of rights or equivalent. That's nice, and he deserves credit for that. Next question: does that mean Canada had no bill of rights or constitution before that time? In the 1970s, could the Canadian government arrest people for no reason, hold them without pressing charges, and execute them without a trial? The answer is no. Alright, so what did Trudeau's bill of rights actually do? I'm sure it did something. I just want to know what it was. This is not a trick question.

Well, to try to put at least some context on the plate... Canada's constitutional history is extremely muddy and complicated. Prior to 1982, the BNA Act of 1867 was the primary document referred to as the constitution, though Canada had many documents considered constitutional. It wasn't until 1982 and the repatriation that these became a singular document of which the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a piece (Constitution Act, 1982 is the real deal).

Prior to 1982, if Canada wanted to make any laws, they were first passed by Parliament in Canada and then passed by Parliament in England. Yes, that's right. For our laws to be laws, they had to be passed in England too. It's worth noting that this wasn't a rider-fest like it would be in the states though. As far as I know it was a formality for as many years going back that matter. The repatriation was basically when the Queen said "ok, Canada, off you go" and we actually became a real country. This is a massive achievement, no doubt, however the actual politics of it are extremely controversial; Quebec having not signed it and two failed amendment bids to get them in should be good hints as to why. The oversimplified version is that Trudeau basically said (after a few failed attempts at a conciliatory agreement) "this is the constitution" to which QC said no, and english canada said yes.

But as it relates to your question, prior to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (CRF), Canada had a Bill of Rights of sorts, but it wasn't a Constitutional document and didn't stretch nearly as far as the CRF does. Most of the things you've described (unlawful arrests, etc.) were held to account through jurisprudence rather than a constitutional document. The CRF in 1982 basically hit a "reset" button of sorts on 100+ years of jurisprudence, making the 1980s and early-to-mid 90s having all sorts of constitutional challenges to things that were decided upon through jurisprudence in the decades prior to 1982. In the end, it was probably worth it, but far from easy.

Most Canadians are proud of the CRF, though it is not a perfect document. It doesn't protect property rights (and there is considerable debate among academics as to whether or not it should at all), the amendment formula is so strong that no amendment that applies to all provinces/territories/people has ever been passed (some that affect just one province have passed), and we have something called the Notwithstanding Clause (aka. S33).

Section 33.

(1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15.
(2) An Act or a provision of an Act in respect of which a declaration made under this section is in effect shall have such operation as it would have but for the provision of this Charter referred to in the declaration.
(3) A declaration made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force or on such earlier date as may be specified in the declaration.
(4) Parliament or the legislature of a province may re-enact a declaration made under subsection (1).
(5) Subsection (3) applies in respect of a re-enactment made under subsection (4).

Basically any provincial parliament can create law that directly contravenes sections 2 or 7 through 15 of the CRF, but it has a five year time limit, at which time they can re-pass the exact same legislation.

S2 & S7-15 include:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.

10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention
a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;
b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and
c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right
(a) to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence;

12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

13. A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence.

14. A party or witness in any proceedings who does not understand or speak the language in which the proceedings are conducted or who is deaf has the right to the assistance of an interpreter.

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

In brief, our entirety of legal rights can be literally removed at any time given the correct set of circumstances. In many ways, the CRF makes our democracy ripe for actual tyranny. The controversy is real.

 

[Daedalus685]

I miss Jack

 

[Imp]

so what you really saying, in-spite of all your rhetoric, that after the election we will have a minority PC government and NDP as official opposition?

because more than likely that is what will happen.

I wouldn't mind this. If the ship goes down, there will be no confusion as to who the captain is.

 

[desy]

Being in Sask what pissed me off about Trudeau was his flip 'Why should I sell your wheat?' comment to reporters
Why? because the Federal government setup the Homesteaders act where anybody who immigrated to Sask HAD to break the land and grow crops otherwise they couldn't get property. The Feds desperately wanted a population on the prairies because of the new railroad had to have commercial flow, not to mention the Crowe rate.
That's why jackass, the Federal government created the situation now deal with it.

However I don't hold Justin accountable for his dad's sins, I think people just look at him like a Silver Spoon as apposed to somebody who has had to earn it.

 

[zinfamous]

There are elections in Canada? I thought you just went to the center of town with a case of beer each and watched a moose stroll about an enclosed field with candidates names marked out in equal-sized squares on the field's surface.

The moose poops in a square, thus electing that candidate...hopefully before the beer runs out.

 

[werepossum]

So in 1776 Americans threw off the boot of British oppression, and two hundred years later Canadians said "Hey . . . That, um, thingy they did. And that paper thingy they have. Maybe we should, like, maybe work on getting us one, eh?"

Yeah . . . When America finally legalizes drugs, we know who's bogarting the good stuff.